Nicholas Henry's Paradigms with relation to EVOLUTION of PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION...

PARADIGM 1: THE POLITICS/ADMINISTRATION DICHOTOMY, 1900-1926 - The concentration of study during this period was on locus, where public administration should be.

A.  Frank J. Goodnow (1859-1939) – in his published book on Politics and Administration (1900), he identified two distinct functions of government:

1. Politics – has to do with policies or expressions of the state will.

2. Administration – has to do with the execution of these policies.

    Goodnow and his fellow administrationists view public administration to center in the government bureaucracy. During the “public service movement” taking place in American universities in the early part of the century, public administration received its first serious attention from scholars.

     In 1914, the Committee on Instruction in Government of the American Political Science Association issued a statement that political science was concerned with training for citizenship, professional preparations such as law, and training “experts and to prepare specialists for governmental positions.”

B. Leonard D. White (1891-1958) – he published in 1926 the first textbook devoted in to the field of public administration, Introduction to the Study of Public Administration.

 The book is considered by Waldo as quintessentially American progressive in character.

1.                  Politics should not intrude on administration;

2.                  Management lends itself to scientific study;

3.                  Public administration is capable of becoming a “value-free” science in its own right;

4.                  The mission of administration is economy and efficiency.

     In this paradigm, the notion was to strengthen a distinct politics/administration dichotomy by relating it to value/fact dichotomy. Everything that public administrationists scrutinized in the executive branch was imbued with the colorings and legitimacy of being somehow “factual” and “scientific”, while the study of policy making and related matters was left to the political scientists. In political science departments, it is the public administrationists who teach organization theory, budgeting, and personnel while political scientists teach virtually everything else.

PARADIGM 2: THE PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATION, 1927-1937 – the concentration of study during this period was on focus – essential expertise in the form of administrative principles.

1.                  927 - F. W. Willoughby published his book, Principles of Public Administration, the second fully fledged text in the field depicting certain scientific principles of administration.

2.                  1930s and early 1940s – Public administrationists were in demand for their managerial knowledge, courted by industry and government alike. ‘Principles were principles, and administration was administration.’

3.                  1937 – Luther H. Gullick and Lyndall Urwick’s papers on the Science of Administration called the “high noon of orthodoxy” pointed out the importance of principles to favor ‘focus’

THE CHALLENGE, 1938-1950

1. Politics and administration could never be separated in any remotely sensible fashion.

2. The principles of administration were logically inconsistent.

3. Questioned the assumption that politics and administration could be dichotomized. This is supported by “A theory of public administration means in our time a theory of politics also.”

4. There could be no such thing as a “principle” of administration

   The first and second challenges were revealed in the books of Chester I. Barnard’s The Functions of the Executive and Herbert A. Simon’s Administrative Behavior in 1938. The third challenge was revealed by Fritz Morstein Marx’s Elements of Public Administration in 1946 and John Merriman Gaus’s Trends in the Theory of Public Administration” in 1950. The fourth challenge was revealed in the books of Robert A Dahl, Simon, Waldo, and others. Simon’s Administrative Behavior pointed out that for every “principle” of administration there was a counter-principle therefore it is questionable.

THE REACTION TO THE CHALLENGE, 1947-1950

Positive (on the part of public administration)

   Alternative suggestions from Simon’s “A comment on ‘The Science of Public Administration’” as reinforcing components for public administrationists:

1. “Pure science of public administration” – a thorough grounding in social psychology

2. “Prescribing for public policy” – resurrecting the unstylish field of political economy

However, public administrationists didn’t want to be ban from the richest sources of inquiry which is the normative political theory, the concept of the public interest and the entire spectrum of human values.

   Public administration considered the formulation of public policies within public bureaucracies and their delivery to the polity.

Negative (on the part of political science)

   Political scientists resisted the growing independence of public administrationists. Lynton K. Caldwell called for “intellectualized understanding” of the executive branch rather than “knowledgeable action” on the part of public administrators.

   The drawing card for student enrollments and government grants favoring public administration affected the field of political science.

The formation of the National Science Foundation in 1950 brought the message to all that the chief federal science agency considered political science to be distinctly junior member of the social sciences based on increasing evidence that political science was held in low esteem by scholars in other fields.

PARADIGM 3: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AS POLITICAL SCIENCE, 1950-1970 (locus)

 1950s – Establishing linkages between public administration and political science. Public administration is an “emphasis”, an “area of interest”, a “synonym” of political science.

 1962 – Public administration was not included as a subfield of political science in the report of the Committee on Political Science as a Discipline of the American Political Science Association.

 1964 – A survey of political scientists indicated that the Public Administration Review was slipping in prestige among political scientists relative to other journals and signaled a decline of faculty in public administration.

 1967 – Public administration disappeared as an organizing category in the program of the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.

 1972 – A survey indicated that only four percent of all the articles published between 1960 and 1970 could be included in the category of “bureaucratic politics”, the only category of the 15 possible that related directly to public administration.

PARADIGM 4: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AS PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, 1956-1970 (focus)

 1956 – An important journal, Administrative Science Quarterly was founded by an administrationist on the premise that public, business, and institutional administration were false distinctions. Thus, administration is administration.

 1960s – Organization theory should be the overarching focus of public administration according to Keith M. Henderson and others. “Organization development” began its rapid rise as a specialty in administrative science due to its involvement in social psychology, opening up of organizations, and self-actualization of the members.

A conflict arises between the public administration and private administration as triggered by administrative science. However, after years of painful dilemma, it was conceived that the concept of determining and implementing the public interest constitutes a definition of public administration.

THE EMERGING PARADIGM 5: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AS PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, 1970-? (locus)

 The term “public affairs” became popularized.

 Public administrationists have been increasingly concerned on areas of policy science, political economy, public policy-making process and its analysis, measurement of policy outputs.

INSTITUTIONALIZING PARADIGM 5: TOWARD CURRICULAR AUTONOMY

 Public administration is, at last, intellectually prepared for the building of an institutionally autonomous educational curriculum. This is because of the presence of a paradigmatic focus of organization theory and management science and also a paradigmatic locus of the public interest as it relates to public affairs.

 1971-1973

1. 1970-1971 – Undergraduate enrollments in public administration increased by 36 percent.

2. 1971-1972 – Graduate enrollments went up 50 percent based on figures provided by NASPAA (National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration)

3. Graduate public administration programs that were part of political science departments sank from 48% to 36% during these periods.

4. Those programs connected with business schools (13%) appeared to be declining.

5. The percentage of separate schools of public administration more than doubled from 12% in 1971 to 25% in 1972.

6. Separate departments of public administration accounted for 23% of the 101 graduate programs surveyed in 1971-73.

7. In an 18-month period between 1970 and 1972, the number of units pertaining public administration more than doubled to approximately 300.

 It is time for public administration to come into its own as substantial progress has been in this direction intellectually. However, it remains to be done.

Sixth PARADIGM later came in that is GOVERNANCE

Where both the locus and focus was maintained …!!!!

What is Digtital Era Governance ?

What is Digtital Era Governance ?

NPM is DEAD .....LONG LIVE THE DIGITAL ERA

Digital ERA is BASICALLY based on three factors a very new concept which came up recently at the early 21st century

1. INTEGRATION

2. NEED BASED HOLISM

3. DIGITALISATION

WHY did NPM die ?

1. NPM was diluting the PUBLICNESS character of PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

2. THe State became REDUCTIONIST in nature

3. There was GENERICNESS in administration

With change in the world dynamics ,,the need to check terrorism , financial unviability , environment pollution , grave financial crisis , and many other no of things came up...the Govt started taking up the functions which it had shredded earlier ...

e.g. After the 9/11 attcks the Govt retook the responsbility of security at airports ...which rested with the private player earlier....

it was realised that the GOVT is responsible to the needsa of the people ...nd customer oreinted approach wont help ...it had to b more responsible to the downtrodden.,, marginalised , poor,,,,this it felt cud b done thru INTEGRATION...it had to integrate the activities of the public nd private ..while it was responsible to the PUBLIC responsibilities it needed to hav an vigilant eye over the activities taken by the PRIVATE PLAYERS by creating a CRITICAL LINKAGE..since everything was meant for the citizens...!!!

in this regard it had to take up IMMENSE CHALLENGE nd A COMPLEX JOB ,,,!!

in order to take up this RESPONSIBILITY it must be very much EMPOWERED and EFFICIENT..!

with help of IT sector .,,by DIGITALISATION of all it affairs it cud easily access to the various files nd documents of interest and take QUICK DECISIONS within hours which wud hav otherwise required DAYS or even MONTHS to b forwarded ...!!!

So through ...INTEGRATION , NEED-BASED HOLISM and DIGITALISATION..it can take up the task to achieve PUBLIC PURPOSE..!! 

 Note -- DIGITAL ERA GOVERNANCE and e-Governance are tow different concepts...for Digital ERA governance to succeed we need e-Governance

Evolution of Public Administration

Public Administration as a discipline is not very old and it is only a hundred years. During these years Public Administration has passed through several phases of development. We can broadly divide the history of Public Administration into the following five periods:-

Period I 1887 – 1926 Period II 1927 - 1937 Period III 1938 - 1947 Period IV 1948 - 1970 Period V 1971 – continuing

Period I (1887 – 1926) Public Administration Dichotomy :

The discipline of Public Administration was born in the USA. The credit for initiating as an academic study of Public Administration goes to Woodrow Wilson, who was teaching Political Science at Princeton University and who later became the President of USA. He is regarded as the father of the discipline of Public Administration. In his article entitled “The Study of Administration”, published in 1887, he emphasized the need for studying Public Administration as a discipline apart from politics. This is known as Principle of politic administration dichotomy, i.e., a separation of Politics and Administration. Wilson argued that, “Administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics. The administrative questions are not political questions”. The field of politics is not the field of business, it is removed from ……. & strife of politics.

According to Frank J.Goodnow, politics “has to do with the expression of the state will” while administration “has to do with the execution of these policies.” In short, Goodnow posited the politics-administration dichotomy and he developed the Wilsonian theme further and greater courage and conviction.

Period II (1927 - 1937) Principles of Administration :

The central belief of this period was that there are certain ‘principles’ of administration and which is the task of the scholars to discover and applied to increase the efficiency and economy of Public Administration. Scientific management handled the business of administration becomes a slogan. Administrative practitioners and business school join hands to mechanistic aspect of management. They claim that Public Administration is a science. The great depression in the America contributed a lot to the development. These periods were the golden years of ‘principles’ in the history of Public Administration. This was also a period when Public Administration commanded a high degree or respectability and its product were in great demand both in government and business.

Period III (1938 – 1947) Era of Challenge :

The main theme during this period was the advocacy of ‘Human Relationship Behavioral Approach’ to the study of Public Administration. The idea of administrative dichotomy was rejected. It was argued that Administration cannot be separated from politics because its political nature and role, Administration is not only concern with policy decision but it deals with the policy formulation. Similarly, the principle of Administration was challenge. It was considered as a proverb and naturalistic facilities they criticized due to it’s depend on formal structure of organization.

Period IV (1948 - 1970) Public Administration As Management:

· Partly because of their second-class citizenship status in a number of Political Science Department of universities, some public administrationists began searching for an alternative.

· the management option —which sometimes is called "administrative science" or "generic management“— was a viable alternative for a significant number of scholars in public administration.

· Management is a field that covers organization theory and behavior, planning, decision making, various techniques of "management science" such as path analysis and queuing theory, human resources management, leadership, motivation, communication, management information systems, budgeting, auditing, productivity, and marketing.

· Management thinking many stemming from the business schools fostered the alternative paradigm of management.

· Scientific management and principles gave way to administrative management science.

· Foremost among these voices was that of Catheryn Seckler-Hudson (basic concepts in the study of public management, 1955).

· She recognized the policy and political implications within the setting of public administration but gave primary weight to the problems of Public Management.

· She argued that management is the Effective utilization of human resources and material to reach the known goal.

· Such other works as James G. March and Herbert Simon’s organization (1858), Richard Cyert and March’s a behavioral theory of the firm (1963), March’s handbook of organization (1965), andJames d. Thompson’s organization in action (1967) gave solid theoretical reasons for choosing management, with an emphasis on organization theory as the paradigm of Public administration.

Organizational development

· In the early 1960s organization development began its rapid rise as a specialty of management. As a focus, organization development represented a particularly tempting alternative to political science for many public Administrationists.

· Organization development as a field is grounded in social psychology and values the "democratization" of bureaucracies, whether public or private, and the "self-actualization" of individual members of organizations. Because of these values, organization development was seen by many younger public Administrationists as offering a very compatible area of research with-in the framework of management.

· Democratic values could be considered, normative concerns could be broached, and intellectual rigor and scientific methodologies could be employed.

Period V(1971 - Continuing :Public administration as publicAdministration: 1971-?

· In 1970, the national association of schools Of public affairs and administration (NASPAA)\ Was founded.

· The formation of NASPAA represented not Only an act of secession by public Administrationists from political science or Management science, but a rise of selfconfidence As well.

· Progress, particularly in the area of Organization theory and information\ Science, has been made in this direction. Additionally, considerable progress has been made in refining the applied techniques And methodologies of public administration.

The New Public Administration

· An important development was that of the "new public administration." in 1968, Dwight Waldo, sponsored a conference of Young public administrationists on the New public administration.

· The proceedings were published as a book In 1971, titled toward a new public Administration: the Minnowbrook Perspective. The focus was disinclined to examine such Traditional phenomena as efficiency, Effectiveness, budgeting, and administrative Techniques. Conversely, the new public Administration was very much aware of Normative theory, philosophy, and activism.

· The questions it raised dealt with values, Ethics, the development of the individual Member in the organization, the relation of the Client with the bureaucracy, and the broad Problems of urbanism, technology, and Violence.

· The overriding tone of the new public Administration was a moral tone.

· the new public administration can be Viewed as a call for independence from Both political science (it was not, after All, ever called the new politics of Bureaucracy) and management (since Man-agement always had been emphatically Technical rather than normative in Approach).

· And it developed with strong geographic Communities –tightly knit neighborhoods and Towns.

· today’s environment demands institutions that Are extremely flexible and adaptable

· it demands institutions that deliver high Quality goods and services,

· It demands institutions that are responsive to Their customers, offering choices of Non standardized services; that lead by Persuasion and incentives rather than Commands; that give their employees a sense of Meaning and control, even ownership.

· It demands institutions that empower citizens them Rather than simply serving them.

· Most government institutions Perform increasingly complex tasks, in competitive, rapidly changing Environments, with customers who Want quality and choice.

· David Osborne and Ted Gabler in reinventing government (1992) introduced the concept ofEntrepreneurial government.

1. Catalytic government: Steering rather than rowing.

2. Community owned government: Empowering rather than serving.

3. Competitive government: Injecting competition into service delivery.

4. Mission-driven government: Transforming rule-driven organization.

5. Results-oriented government: Funding outcomes, no inputs.

6. Customer-driven government: Meeting the needs of the customer, not the bureaucracy.

7. Enterprising government: Eraning rather than spending.

8. Anticipatory government: Prevention rather than cure.

9. Decentralized government: From hierarchy to participation and Teamwork.

10. Market-oriented government: Leveraging change through the market.

The New Public Management (NPM)

· in the early 1990's, a new managerial Approach to public administration began to Take hold. Like the traditional managerial Approach at its inception, the new approach Is reform-oriented and seeks to improve Public sector performance

· It starts from the premise that traditional, bureaucratically organized public Administration is "broke" and "broken“, and Consequently the public has lost faith in Government.

· In the U.S. NPM approach was adopted by Vice president al gore's national Performance review (NPR). Its 1993 Report, from red tape to results: Creating a government that worksBetter & costs less, explicitly sought a New customer service contract with The people, a new guarantee of effective, efficient and responsive government.

· It called for among others: putting Customers first, making service Organizations compete, creating Market dynamics, using market Mechanisms to solve problems, Empowering employees to get results, Decentralization decision making Power, streamlining the budget Process, decentralization personnel Policy, and streamlining procurement.

· Today, the NPM is becoming the Dominant managerial approach. Its key concept-somewhat evolutionary A decade ago- are now the standard Language of public administration. Terms such as "results oriented", "customers focused", "employee empowerment", "entrepreneurship", and "outsourcing", have dominated the Mainstream.

Overall, public administrative Culture is changing to be more flexible, innovative, problem solving, Entrepreneurial, and enterprising as Opposed to rule-bound, process oriented, and focused on inputs Rather than results.